Should cameras be allowed in a courtroom? Cameras would televise trial proceedings and allow the public to witness what goes on in general terms and specific infamous cases that have garnered national attention. One recent example would be Lawrence Nassar’s trial, in which cameras allowed viewers to see the former girl’s gymnastics physician- facing well over 150 sexual abuse charges- and the trial that determined his sentencing. Jeffrey Tooblin from The New Yorker argues that Larry Nassar’s case is one that favors cameras: How Larry Nassar’s Trial Made the Case for Cameras in the Court.

Whether or not the courtroom should be a place that anyone can peer into is a topic of controversy. Here are the main arguments from each side on whether or not trials belong in the public eye:

Anti-Cameras:

-Knowing that they’re on TV could distract jurors, cause witnesses to provide less in-depth or reliable testimonies, or tempt lawyers to act in a manner that makes them look good, rather than how they might otherwise.

-Defendants tend to be portrayed as guilty, which largely impacts trials.

-Likewise, television reporting is inherently biased.

-Emotion may take the place of fair trial and due process of law.

-Being in the room and on TV for everyone to see might paint a target on some people’s back.

-All of these factors would cause viewers to have a distorted view of trial proceedings.

(Credit: PacificStandard)

Pro-Cameras:

-Filming courtroom proceedings could be accomplished with minimal difficulty.

-When done correctly, the public would be educated on what goes on in the courtroom.

-Likewise, the public has the right to know what goes on in the courtroom.

-There isn’t actually any evidence that cameras sway trial proceedings or participants in any negative way.

(Credit: University of Nebraska)

Paul Thomas, ‘19 is against the cameras: “It can’t be ideal to publicize something so personal and complex, for the sake of people involved and the lack of ability for outsiders to understand.”

Rashmi Bajaj, ‘19 provides a solution closer to the middle ground: “I think that courts should publicize transcripts of courtroom dialogue, which would allow everyone to know what was said if they want to, while also eliminating a lot of the visual-related issues that those opposed to cameras are concerned with.”

All in all, there are viable arguments on either side of the controversy. The question of whether cameras need to be in or out of court is one that could go unanswered forever in America, or it could very well have a permanent nationwide ruling some day.